Talk:Yuri/Poems/@comment-36229211-20180720225752/@comment-5952365-20180729093902
@MikpinRYB Why? Because of the urine stains or the debate? XD XD @LucarioCreepy Uuuugh, quotes T-T Imma break it up. ---- "It is not "shown" that she cuts herself for sexual pleasure, Monika just suggests that during Act 2 (as a reminder, Monika wanted to make the player hate the other girls)." I know, I read that comment before, which is why I said: "Yeah, I think it was implied heavily enough, even if Monika messed with her file like with Sayori's depression so the protag would be disgusted and dislike her." In my second comment -_- But with everything Alveaenerle has already said in reply to this specific comment of yours, it really kind of disproves it, making it rather ineligible to further this conversation. It's already been discussed in detail and argued. ---- ^ this is not disagreeable because it's 100% true, there's no way you can "disagree" with this. You can argue that it is possible, but it really is not shown." Dude, seriously?? No offense, but that's REALLY ignorant. It's not "100% true" or "not disagreeable" unless Dan S specifically states that it is. Just because that's your (as you like to say) "interpretation" of it does not mean in any way, shape, or form that it's indisputable, even as a mod. That's super close minded and further more, telling someone "there is just NOOOOO WAAAAAYYYY they could EVER disagree with this!!1!" does not prove you right. You know what else "is not shown"? Natsuki's dad starving or abusing her, but it's heavily implied and you don't see anyone else saying, "WEEELLLLLLLL, it's not SHOWN SOOOOOOOOO NO. You're wrong. Shut up. You can't disagree." now do you? Same thing here, it's extremely heavily implied with a ton of weight on it in the plot, you can't "disqualify" something that's pointed out so much and made so overly obvious to the point of being cringe inducing. Like said before, the poem is a form of "showing" it via the blood and urine stains, but they ain't gonna show her with MC's pen, now are they? -3- ---- In the second act, yes. Not in the first act. In both of my comments talking about this I specifically say that it is possible in the Second Act or that it's implied in Act 2. I'm trying to say both that it's probably not what happens in Act one and that it's not necessarily canon because it's not explicit. You can have it as your headcanon if you want, but there are other possible explanations. The same thing could, again, be said about Natsuki in this case. "It isn't shown her dad is abusive in Act 1, it's only immmmpliiiied in Act 2, therefore the whole fandom is wrong." It's literally the same thing but with Yuri -_- If you're going to say that it isn't canon because it's "not explicit", then Natsuki's dad hitting, starving or abusing her isn't canon either. Because it's "not explicit" enough. Because it's "not shown". Because it's "only REALLY, REALLY, REALLY heavily implied. And talked about. And given evidence to prove it is indeed canon. And given even more evidence on top of the first evidence. And given even more evidence again." Moving on from Yuri and Natsuki, trying to belittle an argument into a single tiny lil "headcanon" is once again very ignorant and does not in any way prove you right. Trying to disqualify a view you disagree with does not make you right. Trying to act like your opinion is indisputable and fact does not make you right. It makes you immature with a closed mind. It would ONLY be an indisputable fact that could not be arguable IF Dan said it's true, which he wouldn't, because it's an absolute fact and is canon that she does. The evidence and implications are too frequent and obvious for it not to be. That's with Yuri and Natsuki. You're '''opinion' is not a fact.'' If you can call nearly every person's opinion/view/"interpretation" in the entire fandom a "headcanon", then YOUR opinion (NOT facts) can be called simple "headcanons" as well. It goes both ways, mod/rights or not. There is so much evidence and implications I can't believe someone is calling it a "headcanon", "fanon" or "just an interpretation". As I said before, yes, there are "other possible explanations", but no one is buying it. It sounds innocent, and if not innocent then it sounds blissfully and willfully ignorant to the endless amount of evidence and implications that prove it true. What do you want to "prove" it? A sprite by Dan of her f*cking MC's pen over her poem with bleeding wrists?? (Y'know, now that I've actually written that, I bet there actually is rule 34 of that :d XD) ---- '' Eh, the wiki's been kinda inactive lately, I don't feel the need to reply to every comment, especially if the comment is just "oh natsuki is my favorite waifu" :P'' Idc and Idk, it wasn't my original comment, and a lot of the comments are still relevant and not just "best girl!"ers. ---- '' Again, that happens in Act two, there is basically no indication that she does it for sexual pleasure in Act 1.'' Yeah, but does that actually matter? Not really! Once again, the same can be said for Natsuki's dad. Also, with this logic, you could say Monika wasn't sentient in Act 1 because it "wasn't shown" or "implied" even though Sayori literally killed herself because of Monika. See how much sense this argument doesn't make? ---- I think I've covered just about everything, if you're going to debate please do it with an open mind and looking over the evidence in the game instead of "MY OPINION IS RIGHT! THIS IS FACT! YOU CAN'T ARGUE!! IT'S NOT DISAGREEABLE!!1!" because that was really ignorant and immature. I'm (not to mention Alveaenerle too) listening to your view, can't you do the same, especially as a mod, since you have some Wiki rights here, and are the only person with Wiki rights in this comment thread. The whole point of the thread was so MikpinRYB could know why there were blood and urine stains on the poem, which was answered in a way that makes complete sense and is canon. Why argue that it's not? It's very obvious and is given tons of evidence. If it's "not disagreeable" and "not canon", then why don't you explain the stains instead? Standing and literally pissing over top of it? YEP, MUCH SENSE. VERY LOGIC. SO CANON. MMMMMM~ By this logic, you could say, "Yuri is never shown cutting, so it's period blood!!" even with the evidence and implications that she does cut, such as the sprites and stickers showing her arms, her raccoon poem, and so on. Hey! It's "not canon" that she cuts because it's "not shown in Act 1" and "only immmpliiiied in Act 2!!" so it's DEFINITELY PERIOD BLOOD AND NOT CUTTING!! YOU CAN'T ARGUE, IT'S A STATEMENT. FACT. I D O N ' T L I K E I T. I T ' S O N L Y I M P L I E D. S H U T U P , E M B E R D O N ' T A R G U E . S H A H T U P. (lol yeah I dooo think I'm funny XD) But you see? -_- You see how much sense this doesn't make?? I really hope you do tbch because I think I've explained it in every way at every angle possible by now T-T Also, foreshadowing, it iiiiiiissssss a thing, you know (I believe Yuri at one point leaves the classroom to cut before Act 2, if I remember that correctly =3=) UGH. POSTING NOW. BEFORE I START THINKING OF MORE AND WRITING AGAIN QnQ